This is not your typical blog. We have recruited scholars and public policy analysts from around the world to provide daily news and commentary on the implications of bioethical issues for women. We hope you’ll bookmark this page and let us know what you think: just click on the comment link at the bottom of each post to join the discussion. To sign up for the WBP newsletter, visit our homepage at www.womensbioethics.org or follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/khinsch

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed on this blog are solely those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy positions of the Women's Bioethics Project.

The screening called pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) for aneuploidy involves the testing of a single cell from a three-day old embryo.It is similar to PGD, a test that looks for specific genes known to cause inherited diseases.Preimplantation-screening of IVF embryos is expensive-the technique virtually doubles the procedure’s overall cost. Until now, eggs from younger women were generally considered to be more frequently defect-free.This concept has been challenged.

Dr. Jeffrey Nelson of the HuntingdonReproductiveCenter in California used PGD to screen 289 embryos from 22 healthy egg donors under the age of 30.“Overall, 42% of the embryos had aneuploidy or abnormal chromosomes.”Two other studies, one in Maryland and one in Atlanta, conducted similar studies and also detected unexpectedly high incidences of embryos with chromosomal abnormalities in women once considered at reduced risk for such.Doctors are unclear as to whether the drugs used for IVF are responsible for such inflated risk or if defective eggs are common among the genetic population but are rejected early on by the body.

While most agree that the results have challenged traditional thinking, the ensuing recommendations vary from the radical to the cautious. Dr. Nelson believes the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority should relax its guidelines and recommend wider IVF screenings. A spokesman from the HFEA answers, “we are concerned that women are properly aware of the potential risks before they choose to have this test and that women and embryos are not tested unnecessarily. Mr. Stuart Lavery, a consultant gynecologist at HammersmithHospital and a spokesman for the British Fertility Society, said “it’s very interesting, but it is quite preliminary.” He recommended that caution still be exercised when considering wider screening, as the procedure is relatively new and can be invasive. “He said the benefits would have to outweigh any harms.”

VerveEarth

Contact Mailer

Nature Ally

Blog Disclaimer

The opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the contributors, and are NOT representative in any way of their employers or the Women's Bioethics Project.

The authors retain all copyright through the terms of the Creative Commons license on the site, and thus may use or publish any post elsewhere in compliance with U.S. copyright law. The information on this site is intended for educational discussion purposes only, and not as recommendations on how to diagnose or treat illnesses.

Nothing on this website constitutes legal, medical, or other professional advice. In addition, nothing on this blog serves to create any kind of professional relationship whatsoever.

No confidential patient or research subject information held by any author of any posting will be placed on the blog, nor should any information you post in comments or email written to the authors or managers of the blog, authors of its postings, in comments, to management, or to our design or technical support staff be considered confidential. Do not post or otherwise utilize confidential information of any kind on this site.